filtration?

[QldRobbo]

G'day,
I bought a 100gal tank about 4 months ago that came with an el-cheapo 375gph canister filter. Due to poor design the intake requires unclogging every few days. Because of this the tank was very underfiltered, so I bought a 500gph internal power filter to run in conjunction with the canister which helped a lot but it is only providing mechanical filtration.

I want to completely replace the crap canister filter, and just run whatever I replace it with and the internal filter. My question is what should I get to replace the canister filter?

Should I get something like an AquaClear 110/500? Or something like a penguin biowheel? Will one of these be enough with the power filter? I would prefer to not get another canister filter.

I am running a community freshwater tank, with lots of real plants and driftwood.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Robbo

[RockabillyChick]

if it were me, i would just get a better canister. HOB's don't tend to have enough power with tanks that big. canisters are good filters if you get a good brand. i don't currently have a canister because i don't have a large tank, so i can't give you any recomendations.

[oscar83]

i agree with rockabillychick, canisters are def much better for large tanks than hobs are. i currently run dual fluval 404's on my 75 gallon tank and i couldnt be happier with them. i would suggest either fluval or eheim. you can pick up a fluval 404 for less than $100 probably closer to $75.

[fishn10s]

On my 75 gal freshwater community aquarium with no live plants, I have an Emp 400 HOF and a Rena Filstar XP3 canister filter. I just love the XP3 and its features and am very happy with it.

[Rallysman]

I've got a XP3 and I couldnt be more unhappy. I would trade it for an AC110 any day. I had to give canisters a shot. They just arent for me:(
back to the DIY wet/dry.

[plah831]

Rallysman, what don't you like about your XP3? I've only heard good things about the Rena canisters. I was thinking of getting an XP2 myself, so your input would be appreciated.

[Grundy]

I have been running 2 Emperor 400's on my 125 gallon tank for about 5 years with good results (the only other filter was an UGF). I recently added a Fluval 305 for added filtration and have been very happy with it. If I had to start over on a big tank I would probably do a Fluval 405 and a HOB (Emperor or AC).

[Rallysman]

Rallysman, what don't you like about your XP3? I've only heard good things about the Rena canisters. I was thinking of getting an XP2 myself, so your input would be appreciated.
Makes a mess when I clean it, the flow is weak-VERY weak, it's hard to get good surface agitation (which can be good for platned, but I dont have plants), no oxygen transfer (goes for canisters in general). My biggest complaint is that it is very weak. Most people love them, but I dont see why.

[fishn10s]

I don't want to argue but to the contrary I get great flow and hand in hand great surface agitation. I use the spreader bar just below the surface and point it up towards the surface. There are a number of conditions that can reduce the flow in your canister filter including the media in the filter, length of tubing, height, etc. so it explains how one will get different gph in their set up. For me, I am very pleased with the XP3. Cleaning is a snap. Just lift a handle to stop flow to the filter, and lift the top off of the filter, carry to where you want to with convenient handles on the side, do your cleaning, replace top, open lines and there you go. I have just returned to the fish hobby after a few year lay off. Actually had a salt water reef tank before. I researched the canister filters before I purchased one and felt the input stated that basically all were good. I chose the Rena XP3 because I liked the features. Honestly can't compare because the only one I used before was a Marineland canister and there was no comparison. Like everything, set ups and preferences are a personal thing. I just wanted to say that I am extremely happy with my XP3 to now!

[loaches r cool]

Yeah, I like my XP3... I actually thought it had too much pressure, I mean with the spray bar the little jets of water shooting out were so strong I drilled the holes out slightly larger to reduce the speed wich water was shooting out. And it doesnt seem to be any more difficult than other canisters to take out and clean, just gotta remember to actually do it every so often. :) I am sure the Ehiem filters are better but for $90 I figured I'd give the XP3 a try. If your tank is heavily planted and doing very well (high lighting, co2, ferts...) then a canister is typically considered the best option since you want to minimize surface agitation, and dont need as much bio-filtration... basically you just need mech filtration and thats what the canisters do best. But that all depends on how well the plants are doing and you stocking levels.

[Rallysman]

I just find myself comparing filters to wet/drys which I should try to stop doing.


When I think of easy cleaning, i dont want to have to shut it off, disconnect, reconnect, dump, fill, prime, take stuff out/put stuff back in..... I want to take the prefilter off of the running filter, put new material on, and walk away. I just think there are better ways to filter your tank for the same amount of money.

[Rbishop]

Rally, in a post on Friday, you recommended Eheim over Fluval. I take it you do not like canisters, but like Ehiem over Fluval, and you prefer wet/dry...? Which Eheim do you have (had)?

[Rallysman]

I've never owned one personally, but delt with them in friends houses and at our LFS. Canisters arent bad, but they just arent for me. The quality craftmanship of an eheim is obvious just by handling and looking. They are very well made.
There is a thread on another site talking about the longest lasting equipment, and there are a few people claiming 15+ years out of an eheim with no problems. Even though I dont have much use for them, that's pretty impressive! lol

[Rbishop]

See your point. Seems the canisters are like UGF/RUGF, you either love 'em or hate 'em. I am a die hard Magnum 350 guy. The others look contemporary and sleek, but too many parts for me. Have a couple homemade wet/dry for heavy tanks. And I'll never give up on RUGF.

[QldRobbo]

I've been reading up on DIY Wet/Dry filters... That seems like the best option for me since I seem to agree with Rallysman that canisters just aren't for me

[QldRobbo]

One thing I don't undertand with wet/dry filters

My tank does not have any overflow capabilities, so I assume that I'll need to syphon the water into an overflow box on the back of the tank, and then run an overflow tube from that overflow box to the wet/dry.... do I just need to make sure I use large diametre tubing for all overflow stuff to make sure it can gravity flow at least the amount that the return pump is going to pump back into the tank?

Since I have a 100gal tank, I'm assuming I'm going to want a return pump that pumps around 400gal per hour...

How do I know actual pump output, rather than maximum/advertised? how do I measure it?

[loaches r cool]

You'll need an overflow box. I dont know the flow rates of certain diameter tubbing but your correct in that your overflow and hoses will need to be rated at or probably higher than your pump capacity. Usually pumps will list thier flow rate with regards to the hieght your moving water up too. I have not ever measured a pump to see how close this comes in reality... not sure if anyone else here has gone that far? I suppose you could assume some loss over time and maybe if you have a filter on the pump intake. I would think if you keep the pump clean and dont use an overly restrictive filter on it, you should get close to the advertised rating.

[Rallysman]

I use a DIY PVC siphon that acts like an overflow (never loses prime) on my tanks with wet/drys and drip systems. The 1" PVC can flow 600 gph easily. The pumps ratings are usually at 0' head pressure. They will list their rates at other head pressures, and are generally close to what they claim. I can get pictures of my setup sometime in the near future, because explaining my overflow is almost impossible lol.

[QldRobbo]

if you could provide photos/description or article on net if you got your design from somewhere? I will be looking to make one very soon...

Very interested, any help appreciated... I spent most of this morning reading about DIY wet/dry's and I understand it all a lot better now.

[Rbishop]

QR....

http://www.melevsreef.com/acrylics/overflow.html

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/diy_overflow.php

[Rallysman]

I would go with this for an overflow. If I can find the like to the PVC one I made I'll post it, as it works flawlessly.
http://www.aquatraders.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=146

[cyberbeer65]

if it were me, i would just get a better canister. HOB's don't tend to have enough power with tanks that big. canisters are good filters if you get a good brand. i don't currently have a canister because i don't have a large tank, so i can't give you any recomendations.

I have two Aquaclear 110 HOB on my 100 gal and my water is crystal clear,and if you look in my signature,I don't have a small bio load.

[loaches r cool]

FWIW here is another resource for DIY wet/dry http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua/wetdry.htm

[QldRobbo]

thanks for all your help everyone!

[QldRobbo]

why does everyone use skimmer boxes for their overflow?

What I mean is, if I put a syphon tube in the tank that went to an overflow box on the outside of my tank... and in that overflow box I had a partition between the inlet from tank, and outlet to sump which was partitioned to the height of my water that would work also right?

The advantages of this is that it isn't only sucking water from the top, I can put holes in the syphon tube at halfway down and near the bottom of the tank.... the only advantage I can see to using a skimmer is that the syphon tube between the skimmer and the box on the outside of the tank shouldn't ever lose prime, whereas I'd need to re-prime mine after every water change (unless I put in a valve).

Does this make sense to everyone? If so, wouldn't this technically be a better option?

[loaches r cool]

QldRobbo, if I understand what you are saying correctly, then I think the main problem other than it loosing siphon whenever the tank water level dipped below the first 'hole' is that I think if the water level in the tank decreased it would suck the water in reverse through the overflow and empty it, loosing your siphon. The way the skimmer box works is that only the extra water pumped into the tank from the sump then pushes the water level up to flow into the skimmer box. No matter what happens to the tank level the skimmer/oveflow will maintain siphon in the traditional design. But why do you want the intake to be lower in the tank? If your trying to suck up more debris than you have to be really carefull any prefilter or anything doesnt get clogged because if water cant flow down into the sump at the rate the pump is pumping back then your going to have a flood unless you incorperate some kind of water level switch.


The advantages of this is that it isn't only sucking water from the top I dont see this as much an advantage, atleast when weighed against the advantage of continous siphon. Thats just my opinion... but then again I might not be understanding your design properly either.